gunsmoke Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Gunsmoke, you are totally wrong about who you claim is director of BASC or BASC Direct, by making such silly comments that are totally incorrect you undermine the validity of your posts Kes, BASC has never been disloyal or unfaithful to its members. I can only reiterate that our position on lead is, and has always been clearly started on our website and in our magazine. How or why some of you think attacking BASC at this time is going to help the lead issue or indeed shooting in general is totally beyond me May i respectfully ask that those of you who support BASC continue to do so, we genuinely have your best interests at heart and we will do all we can to help and support you and safeguard the future of shooting. Those who support other organisations please understand that at this time we are all standing together on this issue, and as I have said, if you ask your association representatives if they think its a good idea to start casting unfounded accusations at other organisations they will tell you no its not! Your are correct John Swift is no long a director of BASC direct Ltd. I looked up the compony two weeks ago and he was the sole director. Today there are a number of directors and John Swift is not one of them. Must have found an old web site company listing that has not been updated. Your best interests at heart? pull the other one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 I have been saying it for years, we will soon have Lord Swift of Marford Mill, for services to NuLab, sitting in the house of Lords. For dis-service to the shooting community. I'm cancelling my BASC membership as they are not doing anywhere near enough to keep lead shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) David, Listed at companies house there are 4 companies: British Association for shooting and conservation Limited - (Parent) BASC Direct Limited - (Subsidiary)BASC Limited - (Subsidiary)The Code of Good Shooting Practice Ltd - (Subsidiary - Related Name - Lead Ammunition Group) John Swift is still listed as the only Director and Chief Executive of BASC Ltd, albeit BASC Ltd is now a dormant company. I know that in certain circumstances dormant companies must still file a full set of annual accounts. RBrowning2 this will answer your question, John Swift is still a listed director and despite the company being dormant there is still a requirement to file accounts. British Association for shooting and conservation Limited own the 4 ordinary shares in BASC Ltd. BASC Direct Ltd was incorporated on the 2 July 2014 so a relatively new business. It may be worth an explanation of how John Swift can no longer be associated with BASC when he is still a listed as a director of a subsidiary business. Just to clear up any uncertainty. There was a change of Director details on the 27 Nov 2009, but this was simply a name change for John Anthony Swift to Mr John Anthony Swift. At no point was his listed directorship resigned from the business. He may well have resigned as Director (non listed) from 'British Association for shooting and conservation Limited' but there is no listed directors for that organisation, just the subsidiary businesses. BASC Ltd is the non profit making Industrial and Provident Society. Edited February 10, 2015 by grrclark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 David, Listed at companies house there are 4 companies: British Association for shooting and conservation Limited - (Parent) BASC Direct Limited - (Subsidiary) BASC Limited - (Subsidiary) The Code of Good Shooting Practice Ltd - (Subsidiary - Related Name - Lead Ammunition Group) grrclark I must have seen the BASC Ltd, when I look today I looked at BASC Direct Ltd Question: How does the 'the code of good shooting practice ltd' manage to have a subsidiary related company named the LEAD AMMUNITION GROUP? I thought that the LAG was a NGO for Defra? BASC then owns the LAG but has no member on the committee? How does all this work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartynGT4 Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 What a bloody shambles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 What a bloody shambles... Just about says it all really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevo Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 What i would give to be a fly on the wall at basc's head office today ........ :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Question: How does the 'the code of good shooting practice ltd' manage to have a subsidiary related company named the LEAD AMMUNITION GROUP? How does all this work? I suspect 'Good Shooting Practice Ltd' will have been formed to educate us all as to how to use non toxic shot to it's best ability. Once the LAG have made their recommendations to DEFRA and lead ammunition is banned then we'll be seeing a lot more of 'Good Shooting Practice Ltd'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 grrclark I must have seen the BASC Ltd, when I look today I looked at BASC Direct Ltd Question: How does the 'the code of good shooting practice ltd' manage to have a subsidiary related company named the LEAD AMMUNITION GROUP? I thought that the LAG was a NGO for Defra? BASC then owns the LAG but has no member on the committee? How does all this work? The Lead Ammunition Group is not a subsidiary company, I should have made my original post clearer. The Code of Good Shooting Practice Ltd is the subsidiary of British Association of Shooting and Conservation Limited. However, it has a related name of the Lead Ammunition Group. I admit that I am not entirely sure how that works and it could be a misleading entry at Companies House. I shall find out. Lead Ammunition Group is not a company in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Perhaps the Lead Ammunition Group Subsidiary was formed to pay JS through or the Secretariat costs or both. ? "Nor does LAG have the power or authority to make law or change law " . True, but it was set up to advise DEFRA who would have to change the law if one of the members of the group, the FSA was party to a conclusion reached that lead in food may damage health e.g. That danger is explicitly stated in one of the FOI e-mails. Is the assertion valid - the Chairman (allegedly) obviously thinks so, I however do not ? 5000 children at risk of a 1 point drop in IQ - review, not accept, scientific evidence. By comparison how much damage do other envirnmental sources of lead do? Review not accept. So the LAG, or at least the Chair (allegedly) of it could reasonably assume its conclusions would lead to changes in the law. Therefore, to say what has been said by BASC is somewhat disingenuous, quoting terms of reference without a thought for the consequences of what might actually result. This 'revelation' has damaged shooting far more than I could ever do and yet that criticism is levelled at me. I mentioned in a previous post about the necessity for forward planning and within that, risk assessment - clearly not done. Also, how is the CA, e.g. to be held responsible for this ? They must be really disappointed to be associated with this debacle, as perhaps we ALL should be even by membership. Damage limitation - again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 What a bloody shambles... Can't understand all this. If you look at the OP it did seem that on the 25 June the LAG Chairman and "the shooting representative" did us a favour. So, if indeed he is the author of said e-mail, then what happened between June and the 28 October for him to do a complete U turn? I'm also wondering what perhaps someone knew/suspected for he/she to instigate the information request. Additionally, I'd be interested to know who it was. One point which has not been raised is that if someone who was totally against the ongoing use of lead (or even shooting per se) was privy to the existence of the letter then by ensuring it got into the public domain - as it did - then it would cause serious in-fighting and fragmentation amongst the shooting community which would suit their needs nicely - which it has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Can't understand all this. If you look at the OP it did seem that on the 25 June the LAG Chairman and "the shooting representative" did us a favour. So, if indeed he is the author of said e-mail, then what happened between June and the 28 October for him to do a complete U turn? I'm also wondering what perhaps someone knew/suspected for he/she to instigate the information request. Additionally, I'd be interested to know who it was. One point which has not been raised is that if someone who was totally against the ongoing use of lead (or even shooting per se) was privy to the existence of the letter then by ensuring it got into the public domain - as it did - then it would cause serious in-fighting and fragmentation amongst the shooting community which would suit their needs nicely - which it has. Agreed but it has also critically exposed that members seem to be told one thing, whilst another level is saying something else. It does not seem unreasonable to expect those who act on your behalf, adhere to the principles of those who placed them there, or am I being simplistic ? I am saying no more on this as it ranks as so blatant and so stupid and so disingenuous, to me. BASC, rather than shoot itself in the foot, has blown its own head off, and by association damaged shooting fatally. I hope I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 If, Kes, you are accusing BASC of saying one thing in public and something else behind closed doors you are completely and utterly wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 To add to my earlier posts and no doubt also adding to the confusion surrounding the BASC company structure. I have asked the question of someone more knowledgeable than I around what the definition of a "related name" actually means in respect to the Code of Good Shooting Practice Ltd and Lead Ammunition Group. As I say it may just be a misleading entry. BASC Ltd is a dormant company that is wholly owned by British Association of Shooting and Conservation Ltd. John Swift is the Director and Philippa Bursey is the Company secretary. BASC Direct Ltd is still too new to have a requirement to file anything, but it may well be a dormant company also. It is wholly owned by British Association of Shooting and Conservation Limited. The Code of Good Shooting Practice Ltd is also a dormant company and is also wholly owned by British Association of Shooting and Conservation Limited. A dormant company is one whose transactions are limited to payments for shares. Philippa Bursey is the Director of Business Management at British Association of Shooting and Conservation Limited and she is listed as either the Secretary or a Director of BASCLtd, BASC Direct Ltd and The Code of Good Shooting Practice Ltd. She also is a listed director of other companies not directly related to BASC, but they do have a registered office of Marford Mill. That in itself does not infer anythign other than they are using the BASC HQ as a registered address. The parent company is Deer Management Qualifications Ltd which has a couple of subsidiaries. As the name suggests the purpose of that business is issuing Deer Management Qualifications. As an aside, John Swift is also a director of Deer Initiative Ltd, and it's subsidiary, which is a company that offers consulting around the issues of Deer Management. Although separate companies both from each other and BASC, there is a link in Mr Peter Watson who is a Director of Deer Management Qualification Ltd, and it's subsidiaries, and he is also the Secretary of Deer Initiative Ltd and it's subsidiaries. Perhaps not surprising that there is a business link between individuals as there is a shared area of interest between the individuals, but it is a little bit incestuous, as many business areas are. Of course none of that has anything to do with the debate on lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) If, Kes, you are accusing BASC of saying one thing in public and something else behind closed doors you are completely and utterly wrong. David, doesnt the evidence provided by the FOI e-mails suggest that, or is there another explanation I am not aware of? I take your point that it may not be BASC as a whole but 2 rather prominent members of BASC's staff current or past who, it might be suggested are or were the Voice of BASC, and thus the Voice of Shooting. This David, is undoubtedly a mess and making light of it does no one any good in the long run. Also targeting individuals or individual comments, rather then explaining the 'apparent' facts is a useful tactic but a bit overused, and rather evasive, especially in the circumstances shooting now appears to face. I suggest you read again post 310 and tell me it doesnt look like 2 faces, instead of your posts assertions. How would I know what John Swift has said to the Council Members, I am privvy only to PUBLISHED material. With that limited insight, no-one would say the picture looks good. Stable door tactics. I no longer wish to comment - if others cant see what is happening here then they never will. Edited February 11, 2015 by Kes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) If, Kes, you are accusing BASC of saying one thing in public and something else behind closed doors you are completely and utterly wrong. Sorry, Dave but that I can prove your wrong. That why I start all this fighting for lead because BASC staff where so two faced, telling me one think at shows, then telling another story it meetings. Edited February 11, 2015 by gunsmoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) To add to my earlier posts and no doubt also adding to the confusion surrounding the BASC company structure. I have asked the question of someone more knowledgeable than I around what the definition of a "related name" actually means in respect to the Code of Good Shooting Practice Ltd and Lead Ammunition Group. As I say it may just be a misleading entry. BASC Ltd is a dormant company that is wholly owned by British Association of Shooting and Conservation Ltd. John Swift is the Director and Philippa Bursey is the Company secretary. BASC Direct Ltd is still too new to have a requirement to file anything, but it may well be a dormant company also. It is wholly owned by British Association of Shooting and Conservation Limited. The Code of Good Shooting Practice Ltd is also a dormant company and is also wholly owned by British Association of Shooting and Conservation Limited. A dormant company is one whose transactions are limited to payments for shares. Philippa Bursey is the Director of Business Management at British Association of Shooting and Conservation Limited and she is listed as either the Secretary or a Director of BASCLtd, BASC Direct Ltd and The Code of Good Shooting Practice Ltd. She also is a listed director of other companies not directly related to BASC, but they do have a registered office of Marford Mill. That in itself does not infer anythign other than they are using the BASC HQ as a registered address. The parent company is Deer Management Qualifications Ltd which has a couple of subsidiaries. As the name suggests the purpose of that business is issuing Deer Management Qualifications. As an aside, John Swift is also a director of Deer Initiative Ltd, and it's subsidiary, which is a company that offers consulting around the issues of Deer Management. Although separate companies both from each other and BASC, there is a link in Mr Peter Watson who is a Director of Deer Management Qualification Ltd, and it's subsidiaries, and he is also the Secretary of Deer Initiative Ltd and it's subsidiaries. Perhaps not surprising that there is a business link between individuals as there is a shared area of interest between the individuals, but it is a little bit incestuous, as many business areas are. Of course none of that has anything to do with the debate on lead. Gunsmoke, you are totally wrong about who you claim is director of BASC or BASC Direct, by making such silly comments that are totally incorrect you undermine the validity of your posts Touche. Edited February 11, 2015 by Kes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) In respect to the related name, I have got the answer and I should really ought to have worked this out for myself. The domain name www.leadammunitiongroup.co.uk was registered by The Code of Good Shooting Practice Ltd. The date of registration was 28 April 2010. So the relationship is not a legal one in a company relationship, simply that British Association of Shooting and Conservation through one of the subsidiaries own the domain name, perhaps not surprising as John Swift was CEO at that time, so no doubt had someone in BASC register the name. Edited February 11, 2015 by grrclark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 a little research also shows John Harradine represented BASC on the LAG at least once! The same Dr Harradine who got up at a BASC wildfowling conference and said that he had shot with both steel and lead in America and couldn't tell the difference. Perhaps he missed with everything. Who paid for his trip to America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Just Googled "leaks from Lead Ammunition Group" and this is the article which came up first - there is a lot there. As a result the Lead Ammunition Group was set up in 2009, under the chairmanship of the then chief executive of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, John Swift. Mr Swift, who has since retired from his post with BASC, continues to head up the LAG. This week an email released under the Freedom of Information Act and reportedly written by him, suggests he is about to recommend to Defra that lead ammunition be phased out. Part of the email reads: “The conclusion to be drawn on all the evidence that I have so far seen is that lead ammunition is harmful for both wildlife and human health – it is not just a matter for wildfowl – and moreover that the alternatives are safe, effective and available at comparable cost.” Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/War-words-erupts-email-suggesting-imminent-ban/story-26002957-detail/story.html#ixzz3RR2ZHAg9 Follow us: @WMNNews on Twitter | westernmorningnews on Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Priceless! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Head of RSPB. http://markavery.info/2015/02/11/basc-wriggling-gwct-silent-interesting/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 I wonder if the French will take any notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Post removed. Edited February 11, 2015 by Kes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 On the company thing ...There is The British Association for Shooting & Conservation ltd, often referred to as BASC - that's, us the membership organisation - John Swift is not a Director. BASC ltd has never traded, we own it to stop someone else trading as BASC, I believe John Swift was a director. BASC Direct limited is not dormant, its only just started trading, John Swift is not a director. Regardless of what you claim Gunsmoke, BASC's line of lead shot has been consistent- how or why could we say something at a meeting that was contrary to what's published on our website or in our magazine? Not withstanding some of the wild accusations that some have seen fit to bandy about, there have been some good points raised, I have taken these points, listed them out as Questions and put the relevant Answers under them, I hope to publish this on the BASC website later today. Turning though to the specific question that BASC was not represented on LAG, I confirm that although there as not a person from BASC on the main group (save the Chair who is supposed to be neutral) the shooting organisations were represented by the rep from the CA, who spoke on behalf of the organisations who briefed him, not least of all BASC. This is clear if you read the terms of reference of the LAG, to save you time here is the relevant paragraph: A high level group consisting of a person (or persons) from each of the following key sectors will, within the remit set out by Defra & the FSA, take strategic decisions for, and give direction to, the whole group (including sub-groups). Group members will represent the spectrum of views from their sector, not their organisation. The key sectors are: conservation, animal welfare, environment, human food safety, gun & ammunition makers/traders, and shooting and deer management interests. The Group will be overseen by a chairperson appointed by Defra and FSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts